The radical notion that women are adults

Don't Be That Guy? Here's what's wrong with that message [CORRECTED]

In light of the Halifax Police Department mulling over potential charges against the makers of Don’t Be That Guy parody posters, I thought I would repost just what it is about the “teach men not to rape” campaign that is so offensive.

Personally, I love the posters, but what I want to talk about today is the original campaign, designed to teach men not to commit sexual assault. On the surface, the original posters appear innocuous enough. No, obviously, you should not be having sex with a woman so drunk she is passed out face down on the couch with her ass in the air.

No, you should not even think of having sex with a woman who is staggering around the men’s bathroom.

No, you should not be taking off your pants to fuck a chick passed out cold with an empty beer glass at her side and several more stacked on the bedside table.

Obviously, helping a drunk woman home does not entitle you to sex.

And in what is going to come as SHOCKING news to everyone, if someone doesn’t want to have sex with you, you should not have sex with them. I’ll give you a while to process that information, because I’m sure that until this clever campaign came along, you were all busy screwing comatose girls at parties and gleefully hailing cabs so you could help ladies home and then rape them.

Tsk tsk.

Bad boys.

I think I have found a way to illustrate just how offensive these campaigns are, and what the real intention behind them happens to be.

Look at this: the bike theft capital of the world is none other than Toronto, Canada.

Most of the stolen bikes are never recovered, with the bulk of bikes going to China and Jamaica. Jamaica has quite a few black folks, no? So it must be black folks stealing the bikes, right? That right there is what you call LOGIC. Stolen bikes go to Jamaica, Jamaica has a lot of black people, black people must be thieves! Men like to have sex with women, sex with a woman against her will is rape, men must be rapists!

Don’t worry. You’ll get the hang of it.

Let’s say the Toronto Police decide to tackle this epidemic of bike thievery by creating a poster campaign: Don’t Be That Black Guy.

Just because you can pick the lock doesn’t mean you’re allowed to steal the bike. Don’t Be That Black Guy.

Just because she left her bike outside the coffee shop for five minutes doesn’t mean you can steal it. Don’t Be That Black Guy.

Just because it’s easy to jump the fence into the backyard doesn’t mean you can steal that bike. Don’t Be That Black Guy.

And hey, why stop there? There are so many crimes we could address by vilifying an entire group of people!

Just because you found a wallet doesn’t mean you get to take all the cash before you return it. Don’t Be That Jewish Guy.

Just because you own both a pressure cooker and some ball bearings doesn’t mean you can build a bomb and kill people with it. Don’t Be That Muslim Guy.

Just because you found a stray cat doesn’t mean you can kill it and add it to the menu. Don’t Be That Chinese Guy.

Just because you have allergy pills with pseudoephedrine and some hydrogen chloride lying around doesn’t mean you should cook a batch of crystal meth. Don’t be that Latino Guy.

I could go on, but surely it’s clear that posters asking men not to be that guy, you know the rapist guy, will be just as effective as posters asking black guys not to be thieves. And why are these posters not effective?

MOST MEN AREN’T RAPISTS

MOST BLACK MEN AREN’T THIEVES

MOST CHINESE MEN DON’T EAT CATS

MOST LATINO MEN ARE NOT DRUG DEALERS

MOST MUSLIMS DON’T BUILD BOMBS

And the ones that DO? They don’t give a fuck about your stupid posters. They’re risking their lives and freedom and their livelihoods. A police officer with a gun might stop them. Some jackass poster won’t.

What the posters accomplish is to teach men they are natural born rapists. And to teach women to fear and mistrust men.

To hate them.

All men. It’s a hate campaign. There is no other word for it. Does this look familiar?

Posters played a key role in convincing the German population that Jews were evil, scary, bad, some “thing” you should hate. And we know how that turned out, don’t we? Don’t Be That Guy is hate speech, pure and simple. And the more voices that call it out for what it is, the sooner we can expose the real aims of women’s groups that promote these campaigns. They’re the new Nazis. Sound harsh? Just too much to swallow? Think comparing rape campaigns to Jewish propaganda is a false comparison? You might want to think again. Silence is what makes these campaigns possible. You may have other things to say about these posters, but say them you must.

Don’t be that guy.

Lots of love,

JB

CORRECTIONS:

In news that will come as no surprise to my critics, everything you read on this blog is a first draft. I might go back and correct typos, but I have never gone back and done a re-write on any post. This post has three major errors that I want to correct, with the caveat that the errors were the result of my first draft goes up policy.

1. A commenter who calls himself Black Yoda at AVfM has quite rightly pointed out that I have left out one major group in my play on racial stereotypes: white guys. Allow me to correct that casually racist oversight:

Sponsored links

In a way, I don’t mind the “don’t be that guy” campaign simply because it illustrates that feminism has now degenerated into hate mongering. And I’m interested in seeing what comes next. What happens to a society when you’ve delivered the message that all women hate all men? What will the men do next? It’s like an experiment. By a mad scientist. I wonder what kind of monsters they’ll create?

I’m not entirely certain that there isn’t a certain amount of narcissism in the idea that all men want to rape you. I mean, how awesome must that be to know that men the world over would risk everything that they have, including their freedom, just to be with you?

Ripped straight from the pages of a romance novel, almost all of which feature rape.

TMG

Yes, that and projection. “If I think about it all the time, men must think about it even more!!!” Similarly, is the projection that men are constantly sizing up women and judging them on the basis of their hair, makeup, and clothes. That’s what women do to other women, so they blame men for it.

Not ONLY how we men DON’T WANT to rape them, but how we also don’t want to interact with them, listen to them, or even look at them.
If we men actually treated feminists like they have treated us all of our lives, I believe that they would likely be so miserable that they would commit suicide.

Actually, women have, sort of, been surveyed like this, and it was part of the early movement to expand the definition of rape that we’re seeing being played out now as a mythic “rape culture.

Surveys of college age women in the early- to mid-90s added a question along the lines of “have you ever had unwanted sexual contact while intoxicated or on drugs?” which, predictably, got a relatively high response rate. When the “victims” were asked about it, nearly 70% of the women responded that they didn’t think what happened was “rape” putting it down most often to “miscommunication.”

The researchers, however, labeled each instance “rape,” ignoring the women’s own attitudes, because, well, they just didn’t know they were raped.

So apparently, there is very definitely a good reason for the “Don’t Be That Girl” as well.

Wilson

You can word a survey to get any result you want. Asking people hypothetical questions is particularly absurd, you’ll always get garbage, since it’s explicitly unreal. Also if you could do a study of people exposed to those posters you’d likely find the incidence of sex crimes increased amongst them due to the women drinking more recklessly and the men becoming more contemptuous. Deviants of course would be stimulated

It just comes down to the ridiculous assertion that you have consensual sex, and rape. Nothing in between.

I don’t know about you, but for me consent is a continuous spectrum. Some things I really really want to do, some things a really don’t want to do, some things I think “yeah, why not”, some things I think “I’d rather not but if you insist”, and some things I’m indifferent to.

With sex/rape we have this ridiculous situation where apparently there are only two extremes: Enthusiastic consent, and rape. Obviously, when you use two extremes to categorize everything in a continuous spectrum, people draw the line in different places:

“84% of men who committed rape did not label it as rape”

This is the result. I suspect 100% of women who have committed rape do not label it as rape.

You know what makes you different from a lot of other bloggers? You actually take suggestions on your posts. It must have something to do with actually knowing what you’re talking about. Thanks so much for posting this article and please never stop blogging!

Keen Observer

In the same vein, last summer a local organization ran a bar-bathroom poster campaign: “One of these men abuses his partner. You don’t have to.” There was some additional text, but that was the thrust. I was so glad to find out that I had the choice not to abuse. For so long I’ve felt like my dangly bits were forcing me to do things against my will. How often did I rage against the overpowering strength of my manhood. It was a shock to learn I could actually control my actions by mere will. I’m still reeling from the news, and it was over seven months ago.

I have friends who buy into this crap. It pains me, but you can’t reason people out of positions they didn’t reason themselves into…despite the fact they think they did.

Keen Observer

Also, glad to see you back blogging, if intermittently. You’re nearly always an enjoyable read. 🙂

Michael

I thought Edmonton did a much better job. They kept the parody focused on the sexual caricature of men as all rapists. Halifax lost connection with the original and too easily let themselves get dismissed. That and giving everyone the easy out with the logo mistake means the message didn’t get through the media static. Wasted chance. But they’ll do better next time.

Hey, what doesn’t AVFM commission generic digital files of those Edmonton posters to be used anytime one of those “don’t be that guy” campaigns breaks out. Take it to the printer and respond within hours.

ray

Right about the DBTG posters. This is hate propaganda — three decades running now — designed to maintain the populace in a constant falsified hysteria over the Protection of Women From Imminent Danger. These hatemongers know that such hysteria translates into legal, social, and economic power . . . along with the burgeoning of an anti-male, matriarchal police state that keeps males constantly in conflict with one another, and preying on one another in order to “solve” such “crises” as Rape Culture. The DBTG posters are grass-roots, public rationalizations that, further down the line, “permit” the second-class treatment of boys and men in the schools, courts, family, and so forth. These posters, and the mentalities behind them, are insidious and pathological.

Spaniard

Just because she is exchanging her body for money does not mean that you have the right to rent her.

Don’t be that john.

TMG

All good, except for one nitpick. I was at a party with a friend who got invited in a men’s bathroom by two intoxicated chicks who then had sex with him. To imply that this was his fault and they had no responsibility robs these women of agency. Which is something we need to fight against.

The “Don’t Be That Guy” implication that all men are potential rapists is an important part of the “rape culture” narrative that feminists are so desperate to build. Even RAINN has come out against it, delightfully flabbergasting Mandy Manjaw Marcotte.

I’ve commented before about how the “rape culture” narrative is being propagated because feminists need more rape. Rape incidence has decreased by over 50% since the 90s and feminists can’t have that.

But there is a very neat and very subtle trick underneath this narrative that ties into the expansion of the definition of rape to include sexual activity involving any amount of intoxication, meaning that a woman can no longer give consent (or be responsible for her actions) but a man is still accountable.

The standard feminist narrative on rape is that it is not so much a crime of sex as it is of power and control. This is the common conception of “forcible rape,” that involving force and violence, the “stranger-in-the-alley” type of rape. And that’s still how feminists want the public to think of when they hear the word “rape.” Rape is about violence…except when it isn’t.

The other side of the narrative is that rape is about consent, or the lack of consent. Here, the definition is broadened such that it is very fuzzy and involves the earlier part about intoxication but also includes such things as “cajoling” sex from a reluctant woman. But most often it targets “drunken” sex. Not, mind you, “passed out on the couch” sex, but sex between two people who have had a few drinks. Like most college sex and one-night-stands. Here, “rape” is about sex that they both participated in but that she was “unable” to actually consent to. He’s not looking to control her or have power over her, he’s having sex with her. Yet, the feminists want to “teach” women that this is actually rape (it used to be termed “sexual assault” but that’s now been conflated with “rape).

And that’s the neat trick. A woman can say “I was raped” (had sex after drinking) and everyone else hears RAPE! (violently attacked). The benefits are many: it’s a weapon to use against men, it creates the impression in public that rape is rampant when it isn’t, it gets more funding for feminists, and it creates a larger pool of “victims” such that being able to claim to be a rape “survivor” almost becomes a rite of passage and a badge of honor.

But, as with most things feminist, it’s based entirely on lies…

[An aside on language: one only survives something if one faced the possibility of death as the word means continuing to live. So, sorry sweetheart, but drunken sex is not life threatening, so you’re not a rape “survivor” however dramatic you want to be.]

Keen Observer

I laughed when I heard about RAINN venturing their opinion. True story.

The drunk consent/accountability thing has to be one of the primary angles of counterattack. If a woman can’t give consent or be held responsible, neither can a man. That becomes a critical legal double standard that makes equal application of the law impossible. I might suggest some sort of poster with prominent alcohol remnants and an, um, active couple–man on top–with phrasing along the lines of, “One of these people is being raped…”, alcohol doesn’t give consent etc etc. I’m no marketer, but would that not be a clear damnation of their process for at least that line item?

Orphan

Hey girl. The more you drank all night, the more you came on to me. At the end of the night I didn’t rape you. Its not you. Its me. I’m just not that in to rape.

It’s a feminist review of 300: Rise of an Empire. I don’t agree with the reviewer’s viewpoint, but I must say that she worded it well. It’s not often that I enjoy reading something that I differ with on every level. You haven’t given us readers a long, drawn out, neurotic rant like “The New Feminist Warcry” one in quite a long while, and I personally was hoping to see that side of you again. Making a response to this article would show us what you do well, obsess, analyze, and refute. I’ve already sent you an email about this article, and I figured that you probably get inundated with fan mail, so I thought I would make it easy for you and post this in the comments, which you obviously read. If you however don’t feel that this would be a valuable use of your time, I understand, and I won’t be THAT guy.

With regards, From Myself

easttexasfatboy

If a woman goes out and gets drunk, she’s looking for trouble. If she is that senseless, she must be a feminist. Feminism will die out because they aren’t reproducing. Situational awareness is unforgiving. What will a stupid, drunk woman do when we won’t help her? If she happens to get raped or worse, isn’t she responsible for her own stupid decisions? If you think I’m going to help a drunk feminist, please……who needs the trouble helping such a harpy? So, actually darwinian, isn’t it? Why help a snake, when you know it will bite you?

So then, by extension, a man going out and getting drunk is likewise looking for trouble?

There’s some middle ground here between “all sex while drunk is rape” and “she was drunk, so it is okay that I raped her.”

Just because she’s drunk does not mean that it was rape, but the flip side is true too – just because she was drunk doesn’t mean it wasn’t. “She was asking for it,” is not an excuse for rape. Stupid behavior on the part of the woman does make her at least complicit in her own rape, but it does not excuse the rapist. (corrallary, a man walking around Harlem with a stack of $100 bills in plain sight shares some of the blame for getting mugged, but that does not absolve the mugger).

The problem that I have is that the “new” definition of rape includes encounters which were, at the time of the encounter, consensual, and where the woman later decides that she would have never consented if she hadn’t been drunk, so therefore the man took advantage of her drunk state and BAM!

Rape…

Rape?

I don’t think so.

If, at the time of the encounter, she says YES or at least doesn’t say NO, then it was not rape, no matter how badly she ffeels about it the next day. Period.

I apply the following test to whether or not it was rape:

If you are physically capable of resisting, then you must resist (either verbally, physically, or both), or it was not rape. If you were incapacitated to the point that you could not resist and therefore could likewise not consent (ie, passed out drunk), then it was rape.

So, if you are capable of consenting, you are also capable of resisting, and therefore, you must resist.

If you are incapable of consenting, then you are incapable of consenting, and it is rape. Yes, it is the rape of a stupid person who helped her rapist rape her, but it is rape, nonetheless.

easttexasfatboy

My point is that the free ride of irresponsible behavior that women get is unreal. If she goes out and gets wasted, that’s really a bad decision, isn’t it? Yep, there are folks who will take advantage of the situation she PUT herself in, but she wouldn’t get into such serious trouble as rape if she didn’t act stupidly. Don’t really care what happens to her if she acts stupidly. Call me a black knight if you will. I refuse to help feminists. I WILL help women I’m related to or know personally. However, if they become infected with feminism then all bets are off.

So then, by extension, a man going out and getting drunk is likewise looking for trouble?

Often times, yes. And often times men who get blotto drunk find it.

There’s some middle ground here between “all sex while drunk is rape” and “she was drunk, so it is okay that I raped her.”

The problem is that neither of those extremes has any basis in reality. Oh, sure, there are outliers, people who may actually hold either position. We have a name for such people, and that word is “evil”.

The other problem is that–like the example of a man walking around a bad neighborhood (Harlem has actually become fairly nice these days) waving a stack of $100 bills who then gets mugged–feminists are absolutely and adamantly opposed to any suggestion that women should ever even take precautions, such as not getting blotto drunk (good suggestion for nearly anyone) and going home with strange men. To feminists, women should feel perfectly safe doing just that. Any suggestion to the contrary is saying “she asked for it.” (Of course, it isn’t, and feminists are pretty much the only ones who think that way; irony isn’t their strong suit)

Oh, I agree, Sailor. I just saw a lot of “it was her fault, she was ASKING for it” in the OP that I responded to, which is the opposite extreme to what we’re denouncing here, and it is equally as stupid.

I agree, neither situation happens very often, and the “she was drunk, so it was rape” is a fever dream that exists only in the minds of feminists.

Harlem might have been a bad example, but the fact is, if you’re stupid, you share blame. Period.

That being said, sharing blame doesn’t absolve the person who committed the crime one iota, and I saw a lot of that in the OP that I responded to. Just wanted to clarify that.

Gonna don’tet back up on the horse again…..feminists are full of shit……This Comment Is fixin’ to go way wide of pc……don’t want to get raped? Well, snowflake…..don’t dress or act like a “party girl”, how’s that sound? Why give a whiff of skank, unless you are one? There’s a new reality forming, and, well, men are learning not to save skanks…….do you actually expect us to get shot or cut up to save your purse? WTF are you doing out so late? You seriously expect someone to help you at the risk of their life? I’ll let you bleed out on the street…..because frankly you hate me, and I’m going to let you die. Where are the men? Well, we have taken you seriously, and we don’t protect skanks…..Without men, civilization dies……MGTOW is the only answer…….We’ll let you rot…..btw, since feminism is really only for rich white women…..who is gonna fight to save you from the Islamists? They actually stone skanks like you……Feminists are a cancer on our society…..I had an uncle who fought in Korea…..interesting story……They came up on a checkpoint that the Chicoms had seized……found nearly 300 civilians shot out behind the checkpoint…..see, they had a list of folks to shoot…..there’s a moral there somewheres.

Ter

Many, many years ago, I had dated a woman who confided to me that she had been raped. I was horrified. I tried to stay calm but my thoughts raced.. Was she dragged behind bushes? Beaten? Knife to her throat? etc, etc. She went on to tell me that she had gone out with a guy a couple times, who then invited her on an overnight ski trip. He made all the arrangements and she was happy to let him do so. When they arrived, she saw that there was only one bed and became concerned – she had assumed there’d be separate sleeping arrangements. She didn’t say anything because she felt that there was nothing to be done about it and didn’t want to make a fuss. When they went to bed, he started kissing her, etc… and eventually they had sex. I asked if at any time she had told him ‘No’ or in some way tell him that she didn’t want to have sex. She said that she hadn’t because she felt stupid for letting herself get into that situation, so she just let it happen.

I had always assumed “rape” was rape. After this, and in the course of getting to know and experience feminism’s agenda, the word “rape” no longer has any shock value for me. In fact, whenever I hear the term “rape culture” I immediately think “stupid person talking”. I defer any opinion until I know the specifics of the so-called ‘rape’. The ski trip may be an unfortunate story, one of poor judgement (and who doesn’t have a few of those!) – but it wasn’t rape.

I asked if at any time she had told him ‘No’ or in some way tell him that she didn’t want to have sex. She said that she hadn’t because she felt stupid for letting herself get into that situation, so she just let it happen.

Then it wasn’t rape. Only the feminist definition of rape could possibly hold the man accountable for this situation.

He was too forward and pressured her into doing something she didn’t want? Fuck that, she has agency. he didn’t threaten her. He didn’t physically restrain her. She DENIED him the opportunity to NOT rape her (by her definition) by denying him the information that she wasn’t into the sex.. He offered up a situation and she went in willingly. it doesn’t matter the reason that she did so. All that matters is that she willingly went along with it because she was uncomfortable with the alternative, which in this case was to feel stupid or be embarrassed for rejecting the guy.

If feeling stupid or being embarrassed is a worse fate in her calculation than going along with the sex, then this wasn’t rape.

Rape is worse than being embarrassed or feeling stupid.

What was he supposed to do? Read her mind? Somehow divine that she didn’t want it, despite her going along with it?

How can he be held responsible for her having denied him the information he needed to know that she wasn’t into it, especially when she willingly participated, by her onw admission?

A man is too forward, and he’s a rapist. A man isn’t forward enough,and he’s a mincing sissy boy with no self-confidence.

Seems like treacherous territory to tread, to me.

Lean Back

Hello! I’m new here so forgive if I offend. Been bed ridden with flu for past 5 days and surfed hundreds of different blogs and came across yours. I’ve read several of your pages and I have a few questions. Again, not trying to judge, just trying to orientate what I’m reading so cut me some newcomer slack, if you will 🙂 .

I’ll throw out there first that the campaign “don’t be that guy” is well meaning but off the mark. Why? Because “guys” don’t rape. Psychopaths do. Psychopaths are a minority in the population but they do exist. That is why ever rape must be prosecuted to the full extent of the law and the perp put in jail for life (since no place has the death penalty for rape that I know of unfortunately.) The reason I feel so strongly about it is because psychopaths cannot be cured. They never reform. They will rape again. And possibly kill. Therefore they should be put away for life. Rather than making posters that preach to the choir “don’t be that guy”, resources would be better spent making tougher rape laws so that the psychopaths that do rape can be put a stop to.

What is the use in telling a normal human being, a non-rapist not to rape? He’s not going to do it anyway, ever. Its preaching to the choir. There’s also no point in telling psychopathic rapists not to rape because THEY CAN’T STOP. Therefore the only thing left is to either institute the death penalty for them or lock them up for life.

OK now on to some personal questions for the lady who runs this site.

I saw somewhere on here you have a link to the Honest Courtesan. I went to that site and she has you linked under the category “Friends of Whores”. But at the same time I see you use the word “slut” on here and teach girls and women not to be sluts. But you are a “friend of whores”? I’m confused. You wrote that you had kids. Are you against them becoming sluts but becoming prostitutes would be ok? Again, I’m not trying to be cheeky, I’m just trying to make sense of and orientate myself to what you stand for.

You also wrote about Daisy Coleman. She has tried to commit suicide 3 times due to depression and her mom writes about it here;

I’ll throw out there first that the campaign “don’t be that guy” is well meaning but off the mark.
I don’t think it’s well-meaning at all. I think it is calculated to be exactly what it is – an attempt to paint every man as the psychopath that you mention. I base this off of the rhetoric that feminists like these women use constantly to describe men. To them, we’re all predators, stalking the street masturbating furiously until we can find our next rape victim. They think that we need to be “trained” how not to rape, because it is so inherent to our nature to sexually force ourselves on helpless women that we won’t even know we’re doing it until we can be “re-educated.” It is the most offensive, bilious pile of fetid nonsense that one could possibly imagine, and it is being applauded by feminists.That is why ever rape must be prosecuted to the full extent of the law and the perp put in jail for life (since no place has the death penalty for rape that I know of unfortunately.)
That is exactly what the Duke Lacrosse players faced when that woman lied to save her own skin and told the world that they raped her. Effective life in prison because a woman lied. Rape IS prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, often times even when there is no evidence at all (al la Duke Lacrosse) and rape shield laws in place that prohibit the man from being able to lodge a decent defense in his case in the name of “protecting” the woman.
I’ll stipulate that every rape case should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, only if you stipulate that in response, if a woman is found to be lying during the trial, that she face whatever punishment that the man would have faced if her lie had not been found out. If her whim can put a man in prison for the rest of his life, then it should do the same to her.The reason I feel so strongly about it is because psychopaths cannot be cured. They never reform.
This isn’t true, but for the sake of argument, I’ll go along with you…Rather than making posters that preach to the choir “don’t be that guy”, resources would be better spent making tougher rape laws so that the psychopaths that do rape can be put a stop to.
What specific part of the rape laws need to be toughened? The part where a man can already spend life in prison for rape? Or the part where he is denied critical evidence and information that he might use in his defense in the name of protecting the woman? Or the part where the woman’s word is taken, without any additional evidence, to put men away? What, specifically, would you toughen about what is already the most fatally, unfairly skewed criminal prosecution process in our criminal justice system? Do tell.saw somewhere on here you have a link to the Honest Courtesan. I went to that site and she has you linked under the category “Friends of Whores”. But at the same time I see you use the word “slut” on here and teach girls and women not to be sluts.
You’re missing the point, then. A woman who makes a conscious decision to become a slut on her own accord? Fine. She’ll bear the consequences of that, and make no mistake, there ARE consequences.
The problem is that feminists are working feverishly to convince young women that being a slut is the best thing, ever, and trying to manipulate them into it, while simultaneously telling them that slut-dom is consequence free. Feminists are working as hard as they can to ruin young women at industrial rates, and we here are trying to undo that damage by speaking the truth. It isn’t slut-shaming, it’s making sure that impressionable young women aren’t listening to these “role models” and are setting themselves up for a life of misery and disappointment in the name of “empowerment” or whatever nonsense the feminists end up calling it. JB had a pretty good post the other day about why feminists do this, and one of her ideas was that the motives were selfish – they convinced themselves that being a slut was cool when they were younger, and now that they’re older, and probably barren, and can’t find a decent man who will take them, they’re manipulating young women into making the same mistakes so that they can share the misery, and also free up the pool of young men as potential partners for themselves.
You might think that this is pretty “out there” but I’ll point out the multitude of old feminists that spent their entire youth spewing venom about how motherhood was slavery, and then spent their older years throwing money at fertility clinics, hoping in futility that they might finally conceive a child and be happy, for once. Bitter old harpies, to a one; disappointed in life, angry at their own choices, but unable to admit that, and seeking confirmation in their choices by trying to bring other young women down with them.You wrote that you had kids. Are you against them becoming sluts but becoming prostitutes would be ok?
I can’t speak for JB, but since my feelings on the subject closely mirror hers, I will respond with my opinion and let her tell you whether its close enough or not.
Do you understand how a person could agree with another person’s choices in life, but still not wish those choices for their children? I don’t care whether people use marijuana, and don’t judge them negatively for doing so, but I’d rather that my daughter never touches the stuff. I appreciate men who enlist in the armed forces, and thank them daily for what they do, but I’d as soon my son never sign up. I don’t judge my swinger neighbors, who, despite being married, have sex with other people all the time, but I would be absolutely broken if I ever found out that my wife had taken another man into our bed.
Just the same, I don’t judge Honest Courtesan for her choice of lifestyle and employment, but I would as soon my daughter did not follow in her footsteps. If she did, I’d want to at least make sure that it was a result of her having made an intelligent, conscious decision, and not because she was manipulated into it by a bitter old spinster in an effort to destroy her like she destroyed herself. Do you understand?

Lean Back

“Just the same, I don’t judge Honest Courtesan for her choice of lifestyle and employment, but I would as soon my daughter did not follow in her footsteps. If she did, I’d want to at least make sure that it was a result of her having made an intelligent, conscious decision, and not because she was manipulated into it by a bitter old spinster in an effort to destroy her like she destroyed herself. Do you understand?”

I understand but don’t necessarily agree. And I wasn’t aware that HC was a “bitter old spinster”. I thought she was middle aged, retired and married now.

Lean Back

“That is exactly what the Duke Lacrosse players faced when that woman lied to save her own skin and told the world that they raped her. Effective life in prison because a woman lied. Rape IS prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, often times even when there is no evidence at all (al la Duke Lacrosse) ”

So the fuck what? The only reason they’re not in jail is because she decided at the last possible second to retract her story. If she hadn’t?

Regardless of whether they went to jail or not, they still faced those consequences due to the lies of the woman that was supposedly her “victim”.

Not only that, but they missed out on scholarships for lacrosse, two years of playing lacrosse, a couple years of their lives, a couple years of school and in many cases, they’ve been denied employment specifically because of their embroilment in this case.

On top of that, a not unsubstantial segment of the US population still thinks that they are guilty and treats them as such.

I never claimed that they went to jail. I made the point that they FACED that, and all of those other things, and only dodged that bullet because the woman retracted her story.

So let me ask you this: How many women didn’t retract their story? How many men weren’t rich white boys who’s case got national attention, who couldn’t afford the best attorneys money can buy, and as a result, they are now rotting in prison? If the Duke Lacrosse case doesn’t open your eyes to a fatal flaw in the way that we try rape cases, then you’re hopelessly lost.

That’s not what I was trying to say, although upon review, I can see why you might be confused by how I said it. Poorly worded. Sorry about that.

I was talking about the feminists trying to convince my daughter to live life THEIR way, and end up bitter old spinsters like them.

HC is not bitter, nor is she a spinster, nor is she advocating a lifestyle choice to my daughter in any way, shape, or form.

Lean Back

“That’s not what I was trying to say, although upon review, I can see why you might be confused by how I said it. Poorly worded. Sorry about that.”

No worries. Bad example though since in their case the legal system actually worked very well. You need to give an example of when a falsely accused man got sent to prison for rape.

“HC is not bitter, nor is she a spinster, nor is she advocating a lifestyle choice to my daughter in any way, shape, or form.”

I’ll read further. My scanning thus far of her blog gives the impression she is one of those “no judgement” types. That she believes those who choose sex work should not be “judged” for their choices.

The “no judgement” meme runs deep, very deep in this culture.

Lean Back

More on the “no judgement meme”….

I asked: “You wrote that you had kids. Are you against them becoming sluts but becoming prostitutes would be ok?”

You responded: “I can’t speak for JB, but since my feelings on the subject closely mirror hers, I will respond with my opinion and let her tell you whether its close enough or not.
Do you understand how a person could agree with another person’s choices in life, but still not wish those choices for their children? I don’t care whether people use marijuana, and don’t judge them negatively for doing so, but I’d rather that my daughter never touches the stuff. I appreciate men who enlist in the armed forces, and thank them daily for what they do, but I’d as soon my son never sign up. I don’t judge my swinger neighbors, who, despite being married, have sex with other people all the time, but I would be absolutely broken if I ever found out that my wife had taken another man into our bed.
Just the same, I don’t judge Honest Courtesan for her choice of lifestyle and employment, but I would as soon my daughter did not follow in her footsteps.”

– This is where you and I differ. I do make judgements. The things I don’t want my kids doing are the things I make judgements about. If I didn’t then I wouldn’t care if my loved once made those choices or not. But I do, so I judge those choices, no matter who makes them.

I see your contradictory statements as hypocritical at best or disingenuous at worst. Or it could be that you have just never thought these things through very deeply, in which case you should start to, or perhaps you just don’t have a very developed internal values system.

Regardless, it harkens back to the deep seeded tendency in our culture to avoid judgement, or at least to pretend to, by not openly voicing it, even when asked.

Oh, don’t make the mistake of assuming I’m not perfectly willing to judge somebody if I feel the need.

I just honestly don’t have a problem with someone making a choice, like going into sex work or something, if it doesn’t effect me at all.

HC never hurt me. What she did never hurt me. Why in the hell would I care if she does what she does?

My daughter getting into sex work would hurt me, so I care deeply about her not doing so.

I’ve never understood why this is so hard for people to understand. Maybe you can shed some light on that. You say that my statements are contradictory, but I don’t see how.

How is it contradictory to support the right of a free, self-determinate individual to do something of her own accord that I might not want my daughter to partake in?

I voted to legalize pot in my state last year. I don’t touch the stuff, and I will do everything in my power to make sure that my daughter doesn’t, either, but I still support the right of people who want to partake in a perfectly harmless activity that doesn’t negatively effect me in the slightest, to do so.

Why would I give a shit whether someone who is not my daughter is a whore? And why does that make me a hypocrite or having “not deeply considered, poorly thought-out” though processes that are ‘contradictory?”

I don’t see any of that being either of those things.

I like watching motocross racing, but I don’t think I’d like the idea of my daughter going into motocross.

Or skydiving.

Or any other number of things that I wholly support people doing but wouldn’t want my daughter to do.

My neighbors are swingers. I don’t hold that against them, don’t view them negatively in any way for that. it’s their choice, it doesn’t effect me, and I support their right to be swingers if they want to be.

I’m not a swinger. If my wife slept with another man, I’d be heartbroken.

By your logic, that makes me inconsistent, contradictory, and a hypocrite.

By your logic, if I don’t want my wife to be sleeping around with other men, then I should hold a consistent viewpoint and agitate for ALL men’s wives to never sleep around,even if he’s for it. I should negatively judge wives who sleep around, even with their husband’s explicit permission, and I should dislike, and negatively judge my neighbors for being swingers.

This isn’t a case of me being too permissive, or being unwilling to “judge” people. I judge the hell out of people that deserve it. Clicking my name will link to my blog. Go to town trying to find a single blog post where I’m not judging the ever loving fuck out of someone.

There is nothing contradictory about supporting women who choose to be sex workers, but also hoping like hell your daughter never does so.

Lean Back

“I just honestly don’t have a problem with someone making a choice, like going into sex work or something, if it doesn’t effect me at all. ”

That’s you, not me.

We are different and have different approaches to the subject.

Lean Back

” If the Duke Lacrosse case doesn’t open your eyes to a fatal flaw in the way that we try rape cases, then you’re hopelessly lost.”

There was no “fatal flaw” in the way that alleged rape case was tried. That’s why those men are not in jail.